they use rethoric to control this subject. they force us to understand a hard science by applying soft-science tools.
i think the terminology of "man-made" will get people to auto-react, because it tells most people that its all humans, nothing else. That is something we know is not true, but the wording is problematic.
when you have corporations that talk for men, this is what we end up with; greed will dictate how long the parent generation can act like fucking morons.
I'm buying more into the idea that part of the rapid polar melt is due to a shift in the tilt of the Earth (which would cause global warming as the ice caps act as a planetary AC). Whether human pollution is causing it or not, we should stop polluting...regardless. We have a gorgeous planet being polluted for greed. I don't understand what the global warming deniers want--proof humans don't cause global warming and thus we should pollute pollute pollute??
@tvswnet What shift in the tilt of the Earth? The magnetic pole is moving (it always has and always will) but the obliquity (tilt of the Earth's spin axis) only shifts by 2 degrees which would not make a lot of difference from extreme (22 deg) to extreme (24 deg) and besides it takes 40,000 yeras to complete a cycle. Global warming is happening on a timescale of a few decades.
@drkstrong I've read/listened to theories that not only are the magnetic poles shifting but the whole planet itself is changing its tilt, thus changing the equator and everything else. NASA would probably know, but one cannot always trust those guys to tell the truth. As you rightly point out, it's more/less impossible to "know" the causes. Also, we really "know" nearly nothing...consider our understanding/"knowledge" of almost everything even just 50 years ago...radically different.
@tvswnet There is no evidence of any change in the Earth's til. If that were the case the predictions of things like the path of eclipses, sunrise and sunset, tides, satelite orbits would all be wrong and they arent.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
@canebluff meanwhile the north pole continues to melt, greenland continues to melt along with antarctica and at record rates and accelerating. pray tell, what do you think the explantion is? spontaneous creation of co2 perhaps?
@canebluff for the record there is no reason to not believe that mankind cut down all the trees 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, caused global warming, and consequently caused the toba catastrophe. you take a lot upon yourself to deny the current co2 levels are not mankinds fault, and have yet to offer a reason as to why co2 is rising as it is.
@canebluff Unfortunately you are quoting that well know scientific journal (NOT!) - the Daily Mail - one of the worst and most inaccurate tabloids in the UK (Did you see their article about finding an alien spacecraft in the same edition? Riveting stuff! NOT!)
Try giving me a link to that Met Office paper that they talk about. I went tot he met office site and there was nothing.
@canebluff The mail gives no references to the paper nor quote who authored it, the Met office lists no such paper among it publications in the last several moths, nor does CRU.
My experience when asking journalists about stuff like this is that they refuse to answer.
You were the one quoting it as proof of your point but it seems to be evidence built on a tabloid artcle - not much to go on and certainly not proof. My calculations using CRU, GISS and NOAA data all indicate the opposite.
Where the hell are you getting your fucking inacurate information....?????? Russia just reported....huge blooms of methane off the coast of Siberia.......The science is in and your information is just stupid....
Can't we re-create the Climate/Global Warming Model in a laboratory and check these theories out? They did use vaccum tubes to prove Gravity did exist right?...so something like that could be created.
this video is ideal for an article I'm writing on geoengineering, chemtrails, and scientists plan for UV mitigation to deal with "Global Warming"
read "Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change." and you will see where Teller made plans to reflect sunlight using metal aerosols...
@drkstrong Teller is describing Welsbach seeding for UV mitigation:
US Patent 5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming.
Wherein described action using Aluminum Oxide and Thorium Oxide sprayed in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight to stop "Global Warming" that isn't actually happening.
Scientists and nation heads have agreed to proceed with this plan and are spraying these chemicals from commercial flights exhaust plumes.
@R3zn8D Actually not. Spraying a fine dust does no more (probably less) than a solid foil it is the cross section of the particles not the area over which they are sprayed. Other problem is that none of the aircraft you see make it to the stratosphere (above 60,000 ft)
@pyramonitor The thing you are forgetting is albedo. Ice is white an reflects a gread deal of energy. Much smaller ones nearly made it (ie well past perigee). Note it is also smaller on the way out, a metal ball doesnt do that.
The other thing is that the amount of mass to melt is proportional to the volume (R^3) the energy input is proportional to area (R^2). So bigger things heat up slower than smaller things, while cooling down slower too.
@drkstrong So in essence, we can get a large spacecraft pretty close to the Sun? Also if the craft was big and flying towards the Sun, gravity should help out to speed the craft up. :) Solaris here we come.
@drkstrong Sweet, I think the Sun should be explored more then anything, it's amazing....you should check out the movie Sunshine, if you haven't seen it.
I was always a strong believer in Man made global warming. But when I see that temperatures are rising on every other planet in our solar system I see that its just another program of control, guilt and taxation for the public. Of course we are not helping things with all human forms of pollution and resource depletion, but the universe has her own agenda also. And politicians love to capitalize on blaming their own people for global warming, corrupt banking and the drug trade.
@canebluff The point is that it is impossible to prove ANY scientific theory - Relativity, gravity, stellar structure, nuclear structure, string theory, .....
@drkstrong The problem is when politicians are on a course to bankrupt certain industries (coal for example), place exorbitant carbon taxes on us, and support expensive unproven green technology, all based on an incomplete and questionable analysis.
@canebluff The analysis is neither incomplete nor questionable unless you also question gravity or electricity's existance. If so I would strongly advise not taking a short walk off the edge of a mountain or sticking your fingers into an electricity socket.
Look at UAH globally averaged satellite temperature vs CO2. Poor/no correlation.
AGW are in constant remodeling..hey that is good, it is science. But don't draw conclusions yet as there are many mechanisms still under discussion. With all your youtubes, you strike me as a propagandist tool.
I look at the UAH results regularly, rather than parroting some denialist blog as you are. Which level of the atmosphere are you comparing with CO2? UAH looks at many levels. Their decadal trend in temperature for the lower troposphere is identical to the surface measurements (+0.14C/decade) so match the GHG/aerosol model
You are naively assuming that T changes all layers of the atmosphere are driven by the same processes in the same way. Not so.
@canebluff I note the dodge on the points I raised about the UAH data.
I think you will find that GHG and aerosols are the major climate change drivers at the current time. In the past and over longer timescale other factors come into play as well (Earths orbital changes, the Sun, etc.) but none of those act over short periods like a few decades in such a way that they can make any significant changes like those changes (global warming) that we have been seeing recently.
for not being able to supply proof of AGW, it seems that politicians are more than willing to take compensation for it in the form of cap and trade and carbon taxes. Don't suppose you know much about the club of rome?
@Khepramancer You cant prove a scientific theory - only disprove it. However AGW is the only theory at the moment that explains all the data.
I do know about the club of rome - another conspiracy theory red herring. Just stick to the facts - you can probably find somewhere something that somebody has written espousing just about any point of view. Doesnt mean it happened.
@carbonscam Yes, absolutely. I dont include that stuff in videos because it is boring as all getout to most people. If you look at the scientific papers - it is all there. Try the AMS climate journals, AGU, Nature, Science.
two more points: 1. the notion that no scientific hypothesis can be proved is somewhat fatuous. We call the theory of evolution or the laws of physics "facts", even though they are not strictly so, because the supporting evidence is so strong it seems unlikely that those theories will be disproved. So in this sense it IS in fact possible to "prove" the AGW hypothesis.
2. the AGW theory represented in this video builds something of a straw man. Most people wouldn't argue...
@HarrynJessie ... with the notion that humans contribute to GW. All life, however seemingly insignificant, does in some way. The real question is whether or not the recent warming we've seen over the last 100 years or so is more dangerous than any other warming period in recent geological history AND it is caused by us, to the extent that we could and should do something about it.
@HarrynJessie The danger comes when we eneter new territory - this heating is on top of an already warm period. It is happening faster and when many plant and animal species are already under stress and because of habitat loss have nowhere to go but die.
We could do something about it whether it was caused by us or not. But it is virtually certain that it is caused mostly by us as i pointed out in the video.
@drkstrong I actually agree that many plant and animal species are already under stress, quite apart from anything to do with GW. Take our Barrier Reef for example; or the parts of the Amazon which cover/used to cover Brazil. These are quite real and obvious problems which we should be addressing rather than discuss GW which, it seems to me, is mostly hot air. Perhaps that's somewhat unfair but anyway, as I understand it, solutions to many of these problems can double as solutions to AGW.
@HarrynJessie It might seem like "hot air" but be assured that the other problems that you mention (also caused by humans) will pale into insignificance when put up against AGW.
Interesting video. I didn't know Carbon isotopes were different in fossil fuels than in other sources of CO2-driven GW. Although I'd like to know what this means for CO2 specifically. After all, burning fossil fuels also releases CO, which is a pollutant. How can you distinguish between the CO and CO2 or other carbon-compounds? or does this not matter - i.e. the point is there's more carbon. I don't really get that.
@HarrynJessie First CO is not a GHG. It is what is referred to as a symetric molecule (like N2, O2, etc) - they dont have absorption bands in the critical part of the IR spectrum. Assymetric molecules CO2, H2O, CH4, O3 are. However CO rapidly oxidizes and becomes CO2.
Carbon has 3 main isotopes 12C, 13C, and 14C. 12C is the stable form and the others decay into it eventually. So fossil fules which are ancient are basically C12. Newer plants, etc have higher proportions of the higher isotopes
@drkstrong i know carbon monoxide is not a GHG. It is a pollutant. Unlike CO2, any amount, as far as I'm aware, is bad for the environment. Anyway, if i have this right, you're saying that CO molecules in fossil fuel emissions basically become CO2 molecules, hence fossil fuel emissions cause GW? fair enough. But it still doesn't explain why we should believe the notion that, unless we reduce emissions by at least 25% on 1990 levels by 2020, we will experience "catastrophic" global warming.
@HarrynJessie Define what you would consider catastrophic.
The analogy I like to use is that you are told that the plane you are about to board hasa 10% of crashing and everybody on board dying. Would you catch that plane? I would not.
With the climate we have a 100% of temperaturs going up 2C and a 50% chance of them going up 4C by 2100. There is a 10% chance of them going up 7C or more. That is the equivalent of the plane crashing.
@drkstrong So you're saying it is certain that ambient temperatures will rise 2C. That's a prediction you're making on the basis of econometric models as opposed to any increases in our understanding of climate change. That sounds fairly erroneous to me. Where have you pulled such figures from? Also, the chance of temperatures rising 6C is closer to 1%. Not the 10% you speak of. Where did you get your figure from? If you're going to make a claim like there's a 1 in 10 chance the earth's..
@drkstrong ... temperature will rise by 7C over 100 years - an extremely alarming prediction - you need some damn good evidence.
Now, we couldn't do anything about GW if we hadn't caused it in the first place... that simply stands to reason. In any event, the point is not whether or not we cause GW; it's whether or not its dangerous. If it's not dangerous there is no problem. This video obviously doesn't try to respond to that point.
We could launch millions of tiny mirrors, harvest CO2 from the air, paint the top on manmade construction white, increase the air's aerosol content, fire SO2 into the upper atmosphere, float white polysterene in the polar seas, cover glaciers with reflective material, ......... there are lots of things we could. We build dams and levees to stop rivers flooding - thats a natural phenomenon,
It is not impossible to use the scientific method. You are misrepresenting the evidence. You are saying AGW is true because of increasing temperature (false) increase in number and intensity of hurricanes (false), increasing wildfire (false her in Australia), floods (false - floods due to la nina), intensification of ocean energy? The interesting bit is the ratio between CO2 and O2, and the isotope signature. Thanks.
@MsSpeakersCorner No body say it was impossible to use the scientific method - there just cant ever be proof of a theory because there is always the possibility of a new observation that will show it to be wrong. Boyles LAW looked ever so good for 100 years until scientists could measure temperature more accurately & discovered there were quadratic terms
Increasing Temperatures (False); See watch?v=Ai6ju28nAyk
Australia is not the world, I have not done videos on the others yet but will.
@MsSpeakersCorner "You are saying AGW is true because of increasing temperature (false)"
I think that you have totally missed the point of the section on the scientific method. A rising trend in temperatures is to be expected if Global warming is true. We have that. It does not mean that night time temperatures will be hotter than the previous day's temperatures. No we have a rising trend with day-night oscillations. Similarly we will have Summer-Winter variations on top of the warming trend.
Not only do we have day-nite and summer-winter variations on top of the warming trend but we also have a solar cycle (as evidenced by Sun spots) and over a 100,000 year time cycle variation in temperature due to the shape of the Earth's orbit. Underneath these variations the warming trend is clearly visible. Next comes the evidence that the warming is driven by CO2, then comes the evidence that man put the CO2 into the atmosphere. Evidence that fits together.
@jffryh He was govenor of the Bank of Engand (or whatever the equivalent was back then) when the UK was in the process becoming the most powerful economy in the world. He devised methods to stop the age old counterfeiting of coinage. He also tried to organize fair exchange rates between international currencies based on the amount of precious metal in each, if I remember my history lessons correctly (they were a long time ago).
@drkstrong fun facts. thanks. not sure that's nobel prize worthy. value of currency today of course is less dependent on the value inherent in colored pieces of paper. different times.
@jffryh In those days counterfeiting was undermining economies & was a big deal, his action helped make the Pound a more trusted currency & laid the foundations for it becoming a major reserve currency later. International currency exchange was almost unknown back then because you did not know what the coins from whereever were worth which was a mojor block to trade. Remember there was no such thing as economics as we know it then
I checked he was actually called the Master of the Royal Mint.
thanks, great seance of humour : )
superbeauthy 1 month ago
Thanks for that :)
KellyBoudreau28 1 month ago
they use rethoric to control this subject. they force us to understand a hard science by applying soft-science tools.
i think the terminology of "man-made" will get people to auto-react, because it tells most people that its all humans, nothing else. That is something we know is not true, but the wording is problematic.
when you have corporations that talk for men, this is what we end up with; greed will dictate how long the parent generation can act like fucking morons.
ty for the video.
br0dskalk 1 month ago
@br0dskalk You are welcome!
drkstrong 1 month ago
I'm buying more into the idea that part of the rapid polar melt is due to a shift in the tilt of the Earth (which would cause global warming as the ice caps act as a planetary AC). Whether human pollution is causing it or not, we should stop polluting...regardless. We have a gorgeous planet being polluted for greed. I don't understand what the global warming deniers want--proof humans don't cause global warming and thus we should pollute pollute pollute??
tvswnet 1 month ago
@tvswnet What shift in the tilt of the Earth? The magnetic pole is moving (it always has and always will) but the obliquity (tilt of the Earth's spin axis) only shifts by 2 degrees which would not make a lot of difference from extreme (22 deg) to extreme (24 deg) and besides it takes 40,000 yeras to complete a cycle. Global warming is happening on a timescale of a few decades.
drkstrong 1 month ago
@drkstrong I've read/listened to theories that not only are the magnetic poles shifting but the whole planet itself is changing its tilt, thus changing the equator and everything else. NASA would probably know, but one cannot always trust those guys to tell the truth. As you rightly point out, it's more/less impossible to "know" the causes. Also, we really "know" nearly nothing...consider our understanding/"knowledge" of almost everything even just 50 years ago...radically different.
tvswnet 1 month ago
@tvswnet There is no evidence of any change in the Earth's til. If that were the case the predictions of things like the path of eclipses, sunrise and sunset, tides, satelite orbits would all be wrong and they arent.
Can youpoint me at soem of this evidence?
drkstrong 1 month ago
Take a rest and let the science play out.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff It already has about a decade ago
drkstrong 1 month ago
@drkstrong Try 15 yrs:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff meanwhile the north pole continues to melt, greenland continues to melt along with antarctica and at record rates and accelerating. pray tell, what do you think the explantion is? spontaneous creation of co2 perhaps?
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@vengencefrom1979 The warming you refer has happened before independent of man's activities.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff for the record there is no reason to not believe that mankind cut down all the trees 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, caused global warming, and consequently caused the toba catastrophe. you take a lot upon yourself to deny the current co2 levels are not mankinds fault, and have yet to offer a reason as to why co2 is rising as it is.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@canebluff Unfortunately you are quoting that well know scientific journal (NOT!) - the Daily Mail - one of the worst and most inaccurate tabloids in the UK (Did you see their article about finding an alien spacecraft in the same edition? Riveting stuff! NOT!)
Try giving me a link to that Met Office paper that they talk about. I went tot he met office site and there was nothing.
drkstrong 1 month ago
@drkstrong May be more appropriate for you to check with the author of the article, a David Rose.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff The mail gives no references to the paper nor quote who authored it, the Met office lists no such paper among it publications in the last several moths, nor does CRU.
My experience when asking journalists about stuff like this is that they refuse to answer.
You were the one quoting it as proof of your point but it seems to be evidence built on a tabloid artcle - not much to go on and certainly not proof. My calculations using CRU, GISS and NOAA data all indicate the opposite.
drkstrong 1 month ago
@canebluff ya i seen that too and had it debunked in about a minute -was a recap story 11 years old
coyoteewater 1 month ago
@coyoteewater The article is quoting data from 2012.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff just think how scared the oil companies are to renew the same article with false data
coyoteewater 1 month ago
count down to antarctica meltdown. dont buy any ocean front property unless you like scuba diving.
vengencefrom1979 2 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 :)
drkstrong 2 months ago
@vengencefrom1979 you'll be dead and buried, actually your grandkids will be well and and gone before even they have they have to think about it.
canebluff 1 month ago
Where the hell are you getting your fucking inacurate information....?????? Russia just reported....huge blooms of methane off the coast of Siberia.......The science is in and your information is just stupid....
illuminationclub 2 months ago
@illuminationclub I get my information from the scientific literature, where are you getting the mistaken impression that I am wrong.
drkstrong 2 months ago
Can't we re-create the Climate/Global Warming Model in a laboratory and check these theories out? They did use vaccum tubes to prove Gravity did exist right?...so something like that could be created.
papavalium 2 months ago
@papavalium We already have decades ago
drkstrong 2 months ago
this video is ideal for an article I'm writing on geoengineering, chemtrails, and scientists plan for UV mitigation to deal with "Global Warming"
read "Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change." and you will see where Teller made plans to reflect sunlight using metal aerosols...
I will send you a link Dr.
R3zn8D 2 months ago
@R3zn8D Warning: Teller went off his rocker towards the end of his life.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong he wrote that paper in 1997 for the "22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies"
was he off his rocker yet? lol, I heard that Teller invented the H bomb...
R3zn8D 2 months ago
@R3zn8D that was 50 years before - he went weird in the 90's
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Teller is describing Welsbach seeding for UV mitigation:
US Patent 5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming.
Wherein described action using Aluminum Oxide and Thorium Oxide sprayed in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight to stop "Global Warming" that isn't actually happening.
Scientists and nation heads have agreed to proceed with this plan and are spraying these chemicals from commercial flights exhaust plumes.
1.5 million square miles easy
R3zn8D 2 months ago
@R3zn8D google Project Cloverleaf and Shield Project
R3zn8D 2 months ago
@R3zn8D Actually not. Spraying a fine dust does no more (probably less) than a solid foil it is the cross section of the particles not the area over which they are sprayed. Other problem is that none of the aircraft you see make it to the stratosphere (above 60,000 ft)
drkstrong 2 months ago
Does correlation automatically imply causation ?
RevDevilin 2 months ago
a snowball flew under 100,000 miles close to the sun and was not vaporized.
travel time was long enough to melt solid steel at that distance.
= Metal Ball
pyramonitor 2 months ago
@pyramonitor The thing you are forgetting is albedo. Ice is white an reflects a gread deal of energy. Much smaller ones nearly made it (ie well past perigee). Note it is also smaller on the way out, a metal ball doesnt do that.
The other thing is that the amount of mass to melt is proportional to the volume (R^3) the energy input is proportional to area (R^2). So bigger things heat up slower than smaller things, while cooling down slower too.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong So in essence, we can get a large spacecraft pretty close to the Sun? Also if the craft was big and flying towards the Sun, gravity should help out to speed the craft up. :) Solaris here we come.
papavalium 2 months ago
@papavalium Actually they are starting such a mission - Solar Probe
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Sweet, I think the Sun should be explored more then anything, it's amazing....you should check out the movie Sunshine, if you haven't seen it.
papavalium 2 months ago
the apple fell at free fall speed after a 767 hit the tree and fire made the branches melt and fail
resulting in a no jolt free fall speed collapse !
just like a air blast from a truck brought down the Oklahoma building !
it is funny to ignore such enormous betrayals
but them again when your part of something bad it is best to be silent !
it is just one HELL of a price to pay !
banksters ,money changers ,our demise !
peace doc
waterchildtera 2 months ago
I was always a strong believer in Man made global warming. But when I see that temperatures are rising on every other planet in our solar system I see that its just another program of control, guilt and taxation for the public. Of course we are not helping things with all human forms of pollution and resource depletion, but the universe has her own agenda also. And politicians love to capitalize on blaming their own people for global warming, corrupt banking and the drug trade.
euphorian28 2 months ago 2
@euphorian28 You can start believing again because the temperatures are no rising on the other planets. See.......
Is the Solar System Warming? Part 3: watch?v=hvAtAesaFS4 (gas giants)
Is the Solar System Warming? Part 2: watch?v=Js_M_eHZ5l8 (inner solar system)
Is the Solar System Warming? Part 1: watch?v=NWlqcePhWjk (introduction)
drkstrong 2 months ago
Your words "impossible to prove AGW"
Well, thank you, finally some relevance from your side.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff The point is that it is impossible to prove ANY scientific theory - Relativity, gravity, stellar structure, nuclear structure, string theory, .....
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong lol ! great !
baboonsquadron 2 months ago
@drkstrong The problem is when politicians are on a course to bankrupt certain industries (coal for example), place exorbitant carbon taxes on us, and support expensive unproven green technology, all based on an incomplete and questionable analysis.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff The analysis is neither incomplete nor questionable unless you also question gravity or electricity's existance. If so I would strongly advise not taking a short walk off the edge of a mountain or sticking your fingers into an electricity socket.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Oh good grief. How high school.
Look at UAH globally averaged satellite temperature vs CO2. Poor/no correlation.
AGW are in constant remodeling..hey that is good, it is science. But don't draw conclusions yet as there are many mechanisms still under discussion. With all your youtubes, you strike me as a propagandist tool.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff Good grief, how kindergarden.
I look at the UAH results regularly, rather than parroting some denialist blog as you are. Which level of the atmosphere are you comparing with CO2? UAH looks at many levels. Their decadal trend in temperature for the lower troposphere is identical to the surface measurements (+0.14C/decade) so match the GHG/aerosol model
You are naively assuming that T changes all layers of the atmosphere are driven by the same processes in the same way. Not so.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Even the GHG-AP models suggest CO2 is not a major climate driver.
Have a good day.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff I note the dodge on the points I raised about the UAH data.
I think you will find that GHG and aerosols are the major climate change drivers at the current time. In the past and over longer timescale other factors come into play as well (Earths orbital changes, the Sun, etc.) but none of those act over short periods like a few decades in such a way that they can make any significant changes like those changes (global warming) that we have been seeing recently.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong It all has to be consistent, "to hang together,"
if not, then something is amiss.
canebluff 1 month ago
@canebluff AWG does the other theories dont
drkstrong 1 month ago
for not being able to supply proof of AGW, it seems that politicians are more than willing to take compensation for it in the form of cap and trade and carbon taxes. Don't suppose you know much about the club of rome?
Khepramancer 7 months ago
@Khepramancer You cant prove a scientific theory - only disprove it. However AGW is the only theory at the moment that explains all the data.
I do know about the club of rome - another conspiracy theory red herring. Just stick to the facts - you can probably find somewhere something that somebody has written espousing just about any point of view. Doesnt mean it happened.
drkstrong 7 months ago
Good science requires:
Proof of the direction of cause and effect.
-Does CO2 cause warming, or does warming (for example) release oceanic CO2?
Measurable quantities, equations not just guesswork.
-How much CO2 causes how much temperature increase?
A control experiment, which shows what happens with NO input.
-Are temperatures on other planets and satellites increasing, and by how much?
Ask yourself, are these conditions met by AGW proponents?
carbonscam 10 months ago
@carbonscam Yes, absolutely. I dont include that stuff in videos because it is boring as all getout to most people. If you look at the scientific papers - it is all there. Try the AMS climate journals, AGU, Nature, Science.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong You sound like the dodgey Al Gore now.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff And I would no ignore what carbonscam is asking about oceanic CO2, as it's
solubility in water is very sensitive to temperature. Have a nice day.
canebluff 2 months ago
@canebluff I dot know what that means, except you are out of arguments and trying to insult?
drkstrong 2 months ago
two more points: 1. the notion that no scientific hypothesis can be proved is somewhat fatuous. We call the theory of evolution or the laws of physics "facts", even though they are not strictly so, because the supporting evidence is so strong it seems unlikely that those theories will be disproved. So in this sense it IS in fact possible to "prove" the AGW hypothesis.
2. the AGW theory represented in this video builds something of a straw man. Most people wouldn't argue...
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie ... with the notion that humans contribute to GW. All life, however seemingly insignificant, does in some way. The real question is whether or not the recent warming we've seen over the last 100 years or so is more dangerous than any other warming period in recent geological history AND it is caused by us, to the extent that we could and should do something about it.
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie The danger comes when we eneter new territory - this heating is on top of an already warm period. It is happening faster and when many plant and animal species are already under stress and because of habitat loss have nowhere to go but die.
We could do something about it whether it was caused by us or not. But it is virtually certain that it is caused mostly by us as i pointed out in the video.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong I actually agree that many plant and animal species are already under stress, quite apart from anything to do with GW. Take our Barrier Reef for example; or the parts of the Amazon which cover/used to cover Brazil. These are quite real and obvious problems which we should be addressing rather than discuss GW which, it seems to me, is mostly hot air. Perhaps that's somewhat unfair but anyway, as I understand it, solutions to many of these problems can double as solutions to AGW.
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie It might seem like "hot air" but be assured that the other problems that you mention (also caused by humans) will pale into insignificance when put up against AGW.
drkstrong 11 months ago
Interesting video. I didn't know Carbon isotopes were different in fossil fuels than in other sources of CO2-driven GW. Although I'd like to know what this means for CO2 specifically. After all, burning fossil fuels also releases CO, which is a pollutant. How can you distinguish between the CO and CO2 or other carbon-compounds? or does this not matter - i.e. the point is there's more carbon. I don't really get that.
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie First CO is not a GHG. It is what is referred to as a symetric molecule (like N2, O2, etc) - they dont have absorption bands in the critical part of the IR spectrum. Assymetric molecules CO2, H2O, CH4, O3 are. However CO rapidly oxidizes and becomes CO2.
Carbon has 3 main isotopes 12C, 13C, and 14C. 12C is the stable form and the others decay into it eventually. So fossil fules which are ancient are basically C12. Newer plants, etc have higher proportions of the higher isotopes
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong i know carbon monoxide is not a GHG. It is a pollutant. Unlike CO2, any amount, as far as I'm aware, is bad for the environment. Anyway, if i have this right, you're saying that CO molecules in fossil fuel emissions basically become CO2 molecules, hence fossil fuel emissions cause GW? fair enough. But it still doesn't explain why we should believe the notion that, unless we reduce emissions by at least 25% on 1990 levels by 2020, we will experience "catastrophic" global warming.
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie Define what you would consider catastrophic.
The analogy I like to use is that you are told that the plane you are about to board hasa 10% of crashing and everybody on board dying. Would you catch that plane? I would not.
With the climate we have a 100% of temperaturs going up 2C and a 50% chance of them going up 4C by 2100. There is a 10% chance of them going up 7C or more. That is the equivalent of the plane crashing.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong So you're saying it is certain that ambient temperatures will rise 2C. That's a prediction you're making on the basis of econometric models as opposed to any increases in our understanding of climate change. That sounds fairly erroneous to me. Where have you pulled such figures from? Also, the chance of temperatures rising 6C is closer to 1%. Not the 10% you speak of. Where did you get your figure from? If you're going to make a claim like there's a 1 in 10 chance the earth's..
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie I get the probability from the quoted uncertainties - see IPCC report FAR WG1
Even if it were 1% would you get on a plane with 1 % chance of crashing. I would not.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong ... temperature will rise by 7C over 100 years - an extremely alarming prediction - you need some damn good evidence.
Now, we couldn't do anything about GW if we hadn't caused it in the first place... that simply stands to reason. In any event, the point is not whether or not we cause GW; it's whether or not its dangerous. If it's not dangerous there is no problem. This video obviously doesn't try to respond to that point.
HarrynJessie 11 months ago
@HarrynJessie Same source as before
We could launch millions of tiny mirrors, harvest CO2 from the air, paint the top on manmade construction white, increase the air's aerosol content, fire SO2 into the upper atmosphere, float white polysterene in the polar seas, cover glaciers with reflective material, ......... there are lots of things we could. We build dams and levees to stop rivers flooding - thats a natural phenomenon,
drkstrong 11 months ago
It is not impossible to use the scientific method. You are misrepresenting the evidence. You are saying AGW is true because of increasing temperature (false) increase in number and intensity of hurricanes (false), increasing wildfire (false her in Australia), floods (false - floods due to la nina), intensification of ocean energy? The interesting bit is the ratio between CO2 and O2, and the isotope signature. Thanks.
MsSpeakersCorner 11 months ago
@MsSpeakersCorner No body say it was impossible to use the scientific method - there just cant ever be proof of a theory because there is always the possibility of a new observation that will show it to be wrong. Boyles LAW looked ever so good for 100 years until scientists could measure temperature more accurately & discovered there were quadratic terms
Increasing Temperatures (False); See watch?v=Ai6ju28nAyk
Australia is not the world, I have not done videos on the others yet but will.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@MsSpeakersCorner "You are saying AGW is true because of increasing temperature (false)"
I think that you have totally missed the point of the section on the scientific method. A rising trend in temperatures is to be expected if Global warming is true. We have that. It does not mean that night time temperatures will be hotter than the previous day's temperatures. No we have a rising trend with day-night oscillations. Similarly we will have Summer-Winter variations on top of the warming trend.
RasPesher 11 months ago
@RasPesher Continued...
Not only do we have day-nite and summer-winter variations on top of the warming trend but we also have a solar cycle (as evidenced by Sun spots) and over a 100,000 year time cycle variation in temperature due to the shape of the Earth's orbit. Underneath these variations the warming trend is clearly visible. Next comes the evidence that the warming is driven by CO2, then comes the evidence that man put the CO2 into the atmosphere. Evidence that fits together.
RasPesher 11 months ago
what did newton do regarding economics?
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh He was govenor of the Bank of Engand (or whatever the equivalent was back then) when the UK was in the process becoming the most powerful economy in the world. He devised methods to stop the age old counterfeiting of coinage. He also tried to organize fair exchange rates between international currencies based on the amount of precious metal in each, if I remember my history lessons correctly (they were a long time ago).
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong fun facts. thanks. not sure that's nobel prize worthy. value of currency today of course is less dependent on the value inherent in colored pieces of paper. different times.
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh In those days counterfeiting was undermining economies & was a big deal, his action helped make the Pound a more trusted currency & laid the foundations for it becoming a major reserve currency later. International currency exchange was almost unknown back then because you did not know what the coins from whereever were worth which was a mojor block to trade. Remember there was no such thing as economics as we know it then
I checked he was actually called the Master of the Royal Mint.
drkstrong 1 year ago